Subject: RE: dubious assumptions about IPv6 (was death of the Internet)

From: "Yuri Ismailov (KI/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 16:30:59 +0100

If the number of addresses would be the only concern it would be much easier to expand IPv4 adddresses to 16 bytes and use the rest of IPv4. There are many more things in IPv6 besides address size. IPv6 or whatever besides IPv4 is needed.
My point is not what is better, it is about how to internetwork both of them and this where layering comes into place. The logic is simple: IP was designed to internetwork networks. Once there is more than one IP network, let's internetwork them in a proper way as well. Not more simple than that. Given that, pure IPv6 hosts do not need to use v4 and the other way round.

I'm running IPv6 network with IPv6 DNS since two years ago. It works fine for me, however I want to see both v6 and v4 in action. Do not mind to add private v4 here but internetworked with public v4 and v6 in the same way as v4 to v6 - internetworked but not hacked with the NATs. This is my "math".

-----Original Message-----
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: den 15 januari 2004 15:03
To: Yuri Ismailov (KI/EAB)
Cc: 'Keith Moore'; IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: dubious assumptions about IPv6 (was death of the Internet)

On 15-jan-04, at 12:48, Yuri Ismailov (KI/EAB) wrote:

> I share pretty much the views expressed on the page.

I don't share all of them (9 billion people in 2050, 3.7 billion usable 
IPv4 addresses, show me some math that makes this work) but where on 
this page is there a point being made? It seems more like a fairly 
random collection of statements.

> Small addition to that would be the fact that current "transition" 
> proposals are killing the possibility of transition as such. IPv6 is 
> strongly dependent on IPv4 through various "ipv4 compatible" 
> addresses, which are essentially private IPv6 addresses, i.e. not 
> globally routable.

??? Which kind of IPv4-related addresses would a host with native IPv6 
connectivity and IPv6-enabled applications need?

> BTW, not the only private v6 addresses in this sense. This basically 
> means that it will be nearly impossible or at least extremely hard to 
> wash out IPv4 from the implementation. Personally I think that 
> removing IPv4 can not be justified.

Removing IPv4 from the code would be a peculiar idea to say the least. 
But running IPv6-only works for the most part. I tried this on the most 
recent version of MacOS and it's very easy to disable IPv4 for all 
interfaces except loopback. If you manually configure a nameserver 
that's reachable over IPv6 and use IPv6-capable applications, no 
problems whatsoever. People do give me weird looks when I say that I 
want to test running IPv6-only, though.

> Instead of introducing two networks internetworked in a proper way, 
> there are two networks tightly coupled to each other. Besides all, 
> such approach nearly exclude the design of yet another network, which 
> can be naturally internetworked with existing networks. Are there many 
> believers that IPv6 is the last one and forever?

Forever is a very long time. IPv6 is far from perfect, but none of the 
issues are such that replacing the protocol because of them makes 
sense. If we're going to see something new it will probably be a 
niche-only thing for a very long time. But since a simple lack of 
address space won't be an issue in IPv6 (of course this leaves the 
complex lack of address space) it is almost certain that it will be 
possible to translate back and forth between the new protocol and IPv6 
in a way that's compatible with existing IPv6 implementations, so 
deployment won't be an issue.

> The power of layering was heavily underestimated if not ignored. Isn't 
> it clear enough that we would be nowhere if bridging of link layers 
> would take over internetworking of networks.

Talking about power, where are you going to find the power to run those 
16 million+ entry CAMs at 10 Gbps+ without a network layer?

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:12:09 -0500 (EST)

The way people have been thinking about internetworking them is via NATs
and tunnels. and this has prompted the discussion about the evilness of
NATs.

But whether you internetwork with IPv6 and NAT, or just keep IPv4, NAT
will not go likely go away. The "math" below works out because 9 billion
people don't each need a unique IP address.  The vast majority of those
people will be serviced via NAT, as cable and dsl providers are starting
to do now.  Whether this is replaced by IPv6 inter-networks sooner or
later is probably irrelevant to the kinds of services offered to the
people behind the NATs.  The problem of course, is that once you go the
NAT route, you don't really need IPv6 as much. Then it becomes a cost
issue and a support issue, and it becomes something of a luxury rather
than a necessity.

The other problem is that the entire world can't be converted at once, so
there is significant business in the IPv4 side, that the IPv6 side can't
abandon or lose connectivity to.  Those cable and DSL customers presently
using NATs might not be able to handle IPv6 addresses, so the Cable and
DSL companies can't utilize IPv6 addresses.

It would be like losing the ability to contact your bank and make deposits
if you upgrade to the new version of the accounting software.  You can't
do that.  And the bank can't upgrade because then it would lose the people
who haven't upgraded.  Thus, legacy software is frozen in place, until it
is no longer useful.  This is why most of the software written, is still
written in Cobol.  It is likely that Cobol, and IPv4 will still be in use
in 2050.

I think IPv6 would get faster deployment if the cost structure of IPv6
address space were different (free, or $35/yr registration fee), and one
tried to get a specific new industry to adopt it like a proprietary
protocol that just isn't propietary.  My company, Av8 Internet, doesn't
have IPv6 address space because it costs too much money for a plaything,
and for many years to come, it is just for play.  The vast bulk of the
30,000+ isp's are in the same boat.  Making the address space free, and
getting a lot of it assigned, could lead to more use, even if that use
isn't really anything other than horseplay by ISP admins.  But let's say
that NOC's are interconnected by IPv6, with an IPv6 instant messaging
application or IRC--noncritical, but we're just playing around.  It then
becomes much easier for those ISPs to delegate v6 space to customers, who
just want to play.  Then it becomes easier for those customers to create
some initially insignificant v6 application, that grows in importance, and
in turn, provides a pathway for migrating legacy applications.  Someday,
then, those dsl customers can be migrated to IPv6.

You observation that IPv6 is more than just expanded address space is
good, but when given the chance to create a new protocol, people put all
kinds of improvements in. These improvements increase the complexity
somewhat, but I'm not sure they change the overall problem very much.
Given the cost of the change, one would kind of want some significant
improvement besides address space.

		--Dean

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Yuri Ismailov (KI/EAB) wrote:

> If the number of addresses would be the only concern it would be much
> easier to expand IPv4 adddresses to 16 bytes and use the rest of IPv4.
> There are many more things in IPv6 besides address size. IPv6 or
> whatever besides IPv4 is needed. My point is not what is better, it is
> about how to internetwork both of them and this where layering comes
> into place. The logic is simple: IP was designed to internetwork
> networks. Once there is more than one IP network, let's internetwork
> them in a proper way as well. Not more simple than that. Given that,
> pure IPv6 hosts do not need to use v4 and the other way round.
>
> I'm running IPv6 network with IPv6 DNS since two years ago. It works
> fine for me, however I want to see both v6 and v4 in action. Do not
> mind to add private v4 here but internetworked with public v4 and v6
> in the same way as v4 to v6 - internetworked but not hacked with the
> NATs. This is my "math".
>

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:40:31 +0100

On 15-jan-04, at 18:12, Dean Anderson wrote:

> will not go likely go away.

Directly internetworking IPv4 and IPv6 (where an IPv4-only host talks 
to an IPv6-only host) is only possible for IPv6 hosts that use an 
IPv4-compatible address. This is an interesting experiment, but it's 
not very useful as this imports all the IPv4 address-related issues 
into IPv6.

> The "math" below works out because 9 billion
> people will be serviced via NAT,

What is your basis for this argument? The current host count is around 
250 million but there are 2 billion addresses in (some form of) use. 
This is obviously going to get better and in the long run not every 
individual needs a public address 24/7, but I don't see how we can get 
from 5 - 10 addresses per person to 0.3 without significant problems.

> as cable and dsl providers are starting to do now.

I don't know which part of the world you hang out, but I've never seen 
any ISP NAT on behalf of its customers. I've heard some talk of GPRS 
service providers doing this (but not seen it) but certainly not 
broadband or regular dial-up. If there is NAT somewhere, it's done by 
the end-users themselves.

> abandon or lose connectivity to.

So? One way to accomplish this is to install IPv6 everywhere and only 
keep a few gateways around for access to "legacy" IPv4 web, email and 
the like.

> who haven't upgraded.

Way back when I had to use special software to interact with my bank, I 
used to get a disk with new software in the mail several times each 
year. I guess switching to a web based system was worth it for them 
because of the savings on postage alone.

> Thus, legacy software is frozen in place, until it

That's ridiculous. None of us used IPv4 46 years ago, there is no 
telling what we'll be doing in another 46 years.

> have IPv6 address space because it costs too much money

Talk to ARIN. Here in Europe there is no additional cost for ISPs to 
get IPv6 address space.

> for a plaything, and for many years to come, it is just for play.

Unless you are a hardware or software vendor and your customers want 
IPv6.

> improvement besides address space.

What would this cost be? Are Windows XP and MacOS Panther more 
expensive with IPv6 support than without? (You don't need IPv6-capable 
routers or switches in order to run IPv6.) And IPv6 is still IP, it's 
not hard to learn.

Now if people prefer to stay with IPv4. that's fine. But the people who 
made IPv6 happen deserve some credit because if and when the time comes 
that we really need IPv6, it will be there, which is a very comforting 
thought.

---

From: jfcm <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:06:38 +0100

>issue and a support issue, and it becomes something of a luxury rather

Is there somewhere an upto date analysis of the costs per country/areas of 
IPv6 vs IPv4? This is the "ultima ratio" of a move and of the selection of 
an application to promote IPv6. Without an architectural and economical 
network model could people take decisions. Lobbying will make them 
interested, money will make them decide.
jfc

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:56:47 -0500 (EST)

> not very useful as this imports all the IPv4 address-related issues

I was thinking more of a dual homed host, with an IPv6 interface, and an
IPv4 interface, and an IPv6-IPv4 NAT. Essentially your IPv6 HTTP request
is NATTed or proxied through to an IPv4 server.

> from 5 - 10 addresses per person to 0.3 without significant problems.

Just the observation that most cable and DSL providers can give customers
RFC1918 address space, and use NAT. Some providers are doing this now. The
residential users don't need to have a globaly unique IP address.  The
vast majority of the 9 billion people in the world will be residential
users.  It could very well be possible for a long time to come that only a
few billion unique addressses are needed.

> the end-users themselves.

I've heard of residential service companies doing this.

> > The other problem is that the entire world can't be converted at once,
> > so there is significant business in the IPv4 side, that the IPv6 side
> > can't abandon or lose connectivity to.
>

Right, but everyone operating a server will want to keep their IPv4 legacy
stuff, and what motivation do they have for going to IPv6?  Why, for
example, would Fleet Bank move to IPv6?

This is a serious rhetorical question. You have to put yourself in the
position of CIO of Fleet Bank, and consider the options.  Internal cost,
ISP cost, to what benefit?

> > It would be like losing the ability to contact your bank and make
> > deposits if you upgrade to the new version of the accounting software.
> > You can't do that.  And the bank can't upgrade because then it would
> > lose the people who haven't upgraded.
>

Yep. Those programs cost the bank quite a lot. Most banks didn't do them.
Some that did them, canceled them.  My bank had a dialup program that they
canceled after a pilot.

> > Thus, legacy software is frozen in place, until it is no longer
> > useful.  This is why most of the software written, is still written in
> > Cobol.  It is likely that Cobol, and IPv4 will still be in use in
> > 2050.
>

46 years ago was 1958.  In 1954, the first B52 bomber flew.  The last one
made was delivered in 1962.  I note that we are still flying the B52. It
was only a few years ago that the Pentagon shut down the last Multics
machine. I think somewhere around that then the IBM 360 series was
introduced.  That same architecture still runs in the latest IBM Z series.
You are right that we can't forsee the future. But we can make some
guesses.  Mine is that people will still be using Cobol and IPv4.  I would
also hope that people aren't using Microsoft, but I think that is probably
unlikely.

> > address space were different (free, or $35/yr registration fee), and
> > one tried to get a specific new industry to adopt it like a
> > proprietary protocol that just isn't propietary.  My company, Av8
> > Internet, doesn't have IPv6 address space because it costs too much
> > money
>

Good point.

> Unless you are a hardware or software vendor and your customers want

I have yet to have an Internet customer ask for IPv6 address space. But I
am certain I have customers that have done IPv6 testing.

I think if you make operating systems and network software, the questions
are different.  But the developers of operating systems don't need to talk
to Fleet Bank over IPv6 to test their software, and they don't need IPv6
space from their ISP.

> > good, but when given the chance to create a new protocol, people put
> > all kinds of improvements in. These improvements increase the
> > complexity somewhat, but I'm not sure they change the overall problem
> > very much. Given the cost of the change, one would kind of want some
> > significant improvement besides address space.
>

Here's a 30 second list:

Administrative--you have to create systems to track and manage two pools
of space.
Help Desk--you have to train people to support IPv6
Help Desk--you spend more time spelling out IPv6 addresses over the phone.
Operations--you have to support routing 2 essentially separate protocols
Operations--you have to manage and debug IPv6 problems.

If you are servicing residential users that pay $35/mo, you can't spend
too much time on the phone. You can't spend too much time on network
operations. And you can't spend very much on resource administration.
These are low margin operations. They can't spend very much per user and
stay in business. They have to limit what their customers can do, just to
limit those costs.  IPv4 isn't hard to learn either, but the "unforeseen"
support costs of IPv4 have driven a number of residential providers out of
business.

We don't offer residential services. The story is quite different again in
the commercial services world.  I think the commercial companies like high
tech companies are more likely to want to simply play with IPv6.  But that
isn't something they can pay for, and it would still cost me money to
provide the service. So what's my interest?

But of course, when I talk to Cisco, I still ask them about IPv6 support.
Of course, I'm not willing to pay for it either. Luckily, they are doing
it "for free".  Most everyone wants stuff that _can_ do IPv6, but actually
using that support is another issue altogether.

> that we really need IPv6, it will be there, which is a very comforting

I'm not saying that they don't deserve credit. I'm just saying that there
are many other practicalities to consider.

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:57:52 -0500

> The residential users don't need to have a globaly unique IP address.

That's like saying residential telephone users don't need to have a 
phone number at which they can be reached.  (after all, the purpose of 
their residential phones is to call businesses for the purpose of 
obtaining services, right?)

There are lots of apps that would be valuable to residential users if 
residential users had reachable IP addresses.  check the status of your 
alarm system, or your roast in the oven, or your freezer's inventory.  
Grab a picture from your baby-cam while you're out for dinner and have 
left the kid with the baby sitter.  Reset the thermostat if you're 
going to be out of town longer than you thought.  Do all of these from 
your portable phone/PDA which is running guess what? -- IPv6.

Also, don't assume that IPv6 addresses will be used by people or their 
personal computers.  IPv6 enables lots and lots of individually 
addressable devices which don't have to be associated with individuals. 
  Every km of highway can have an addressable traffic sensor so that 
police and emergency crews know exactly when and where a traffic 
accident happened.  Every streetlight can be monitored to see if it is 
functioning properly or if it needs service.  Every traffic signal can 
be made individually controllable so that they can dynamically adapt to 
changes in traffic patterns.  For reasons like this, the demand for 
IPv6 addresses won't be determined by some linear multiple of the 
number of humans on the planet.

Finally, don't assume that IPv6 devices will require the support 
burdens we associate with PCs.  PCs as we currently know them are 
dinosaurs. Appliances that talk to the network aren't going to need the 
same kind of technical hand-holding that PCs do (because they'd never 
succeed if they did), and neither will the devices that replace what we 
now think of as personal computers.

IPv6 will eventually replace IPv4, but it's misleading to think of IPv6 
as just a replacement for IPv4.  By the time IPv6 replaces IPv4, we 
won't recognize the IPv6 network as something that resembles what the 
IPv4 network is used for today.  Even though the underlying technology 
is very similar, IPv6 is really a new kind of network, one that enables 
things that were really never possible with IPv4 on a large scale.

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:36:08 -0500 (EST)

> obtaining services, right?)

No, its not at all like saying that.  Its like saying that residential
phone users don't need a globally unique circuit facilities assignment
(CFA)  number. Indeed, most residential telephone users aren't aware of
that number, even though they have one.  The globably unique telephone
number is more comparable to the email address, or the instant message id.  
I contact you at [email-masked], not your IP address.  And when I call
your phone number, computers (telephone switches) figure out the physical
switch port number to route the call to.  I don't need to know that
number; That number doesn't need to be unique.  

Indeed, its quite possible that your phone number might even replace your
email address as your globally unique identifier.  And thus it might not
matter whether IP is even used at all. One could connect to that phone
number via TDM switched circuits, via Voice over IP, via Voice over Frame
Relay, or via some other yet-to-be-invented method. That connection could
be voice, email, instant messaging, web, etc. I don't want to go into the
merits of this, but only to use this as an example that IP addresses don't
necessarilly need to be globally unique, so long as there exists other
globably unique identifiers and gateways between different kinds of
networks.

> your portable phone/PDA which is running guess what? -- IPv6.

Sure, but these are servers; servers that many residential use contracts
prohibit except at additional cost. And like email, such services can be
implemented without static ip addresses by 'pushing' data up to a web or
application server.

Certainly, IPv6 could enable some things that aren't possible without it,
and could provide more implementation and design choices to the
application developers. I don't dispute that. But this is not free. There
are practical costs associated with this.

> things that were really never possible with IPv4 on a large scale.

I agree. But like Cobol, technically better solutions aren't always
adopted, and even when they are adopted, the inferior solutions often
don't go away for a long time.

		--Dean

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:45:50 -0500

> number is more comparable to the email address, or the instant message 

only if you want to insist that every application that someone might 
want to run at home should require an expensive external 
infrastructure.  (there are no polite words to describe people with 
that attitude)

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:55:28 -0500 (EST)

> infrastructure.  (there are no polite words to describe people with 

As Kazaa, Napster, Groove, and other protocols have demonstrated, its
quite easy to create peer-to-peer applications without either expensive
external infrastructure or fixed, unique IP addresses.  The scalability of
these protocols has threatened the Music and Movie Industries--and thats
really something.  I wouldn't have thought such a thing possible ten years 
ago.

		--Dean

---

From: Mark Smith <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:00:31 +1030

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:55:28 -0500 (EST)
Dean Anderson <[email-masked]> wrote:

> > >>> The residential users don't need to have a globaly unique
> > >IP address.>
> > >> That's like saying residential telephone users don't need
> > >to have a> phone number at which they can be reached. 
> > >(after all, the purpose of> their residential phones is to
> > >call businesses for the purpose of> obtaining services,
> > >right?)
> > >
> > > No, its not at all like saying that.  Its like saying that
> > > residential phone users don't need a globally unique
> > > circuit facilities assignment(CFA)  number. Indeed, most
> > > residential telephone users aren't aware of that number,
> > > even though they have one.  The globably unique telephone
> > only if you want to insist that every application that
> > someone might want to run at home should require an expensive
> > external infrastructure.  (there are no polite words to
> > describe people with that attitude)
> 
> As Kazaa, Napster, Groove, and other protocols have
> demonstrated, its quite easy to create peer-to-peer
> applications without either expensive external infrastructure
> or fixed, unique IP addresses. 

I'm afraid it isn't quite that easy. I contribute to a few
discussion / help forums where people use these types
applications, including IM with file transfer or VoIP, and the
question as to how to re-configure the NAT/Firewall box to make
the application work comes up quite often.

However, people are willing to wear the inconvenience, as the
benefits, legal or otherwise, are greater.

Everything has a cost. For these types of applications, and the
applications that Keith mentioned, IPv6 will be both cheaper
and far more flexible than the IPv4+NAT combination.

 The scalability of
> these protocols has threatened the Music and Movie
> Industries--and thats really something.  I wouldn't have
> thought such a thing possible ten years ago.
>

This really doesn't say much about the scalability of the
solution. What it indicates is how much effort people are
willing to go to to commit what is perceived as victimless crime.

If these applications work "out of the box" it means effort has
be put into developing NAT traversal solutions. While this effort
is necessary, it is sad that effort had to be expended. The
developers could have been adding extra features, rather than
working around a common network infrastructure limitation.

Regards,
Mark.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:40:54 +0100

On 19-jan-04, at 23:55, Dean Anderson wrote:

> external infrastructure or fixed, unique IP addresses.

These protocols require that at least one side in each transfer is 
capable of receiving inbound sessions. This can work if the user has a 
NAT and configures it such that inbound sessions are forwarded 
appropriately, but it can NOT work if the NATting is done by a service 
provider of some kind without any way for the user to configure this 
NAT box.

> really something.  I wouldn't have thought such a thing possible ten 

So what else is new. In Shakespeare's time there were people that went 
to plays, memorizing them for later copying and performing the play 
without paying the author. And remember these are the same people that 
thought the VCR would kill their business.

---

From: Joe Abley <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 18:52:22 -0500

On 19 Jan 2004, at 16:36, Dean Anderson wrote:

> (CFA)  number.

They do if you want them to be able to receive phone calls from anybody 
else in the world without requiring the call to be switched through 
intermediaries with overlapping address scope.

Decentralising the business of call switching to the edge is surely the 
attractive aspect of voip. If you require calls to be switched through 
third parties, you're just reinventing the PSTN and all its attendant 
baggage using a different transport, and there's nothing particularly 
innovative or disruptive in that.

Joe

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 21:49:38 -0500 (EST)

> provider of some kind without any way for the user to configure this 

It can't work only if Both users have NATs with no inbound access.  

A simple connection broker can probably make this work even with both
sides having no inbound access.  While external, this wouldn't quite be
'expensive external infrastructure'.

> thought the VCR would kill their business.

Duplicating VCR tapes, DVDs, and CDrom's is still relatively
expensive--more so than sharing files over Kazaa.  I'm against the DMCA,
but the old situation is qualitatively and quantitatively different from
today's filesharing.  You used to pay perhaps half the price for an
inferior product.  That's an easy proposition to resist.  Now you get the
same quality for free.  That is much harder to resist.  When there is no
expensive infrastructure necessary to support the activity, it is much
harder to stop.  I can see why that is alarming.

		--Dean